A Red-Headed Reporter's "Confessions" Shouldn't Be a Big Deal

You can easily make the argument that young journalists need to learn that online verbal diarrhea has consequences in a business where you're expected to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity and personal distance from the audience. But that's simply not realistic these days.

You can easily make the argument that young journalists need to learn that online verbal diarrhea has consequences in a business where you're expected to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity and personal distance from the audience. But that's simply not realistic these days.

44

SHARES

I guess no one can ever say that I don't understand what ex-WAAY-TV reporter Shea Allen is going through, at least in a general sense. For the time being Allen is out of a job because of something she posted on her personal blog that her bosses felt was a little too personal and could possibly render her embarrassingly radioactive professionally. Whether or not her candor and humor about the realities of working in the news business actually would hurt her credibility was of course never tested. Predictably, it was easier just to knee-jerk and get rid of her -- despite what appears to be a record of pretty damn stellar service to her station and the community -- rather than ignore a late-night social media brain purge that almost nobody would've seen in the first place had she not been fired over the fucking thing.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

In case you're unaware of Shea Allen's story, up until a few days ago she was an investigative reporter in Huntsville, Alabama, probably doing her fair share of personally satisfying work but I guarantee suffering through all the various indignities that go along with being a reporter in Huntsville, Alabama. That ended, both the good and bad, as soon as she published a post to her personal blog called "Confessions of a Red-Headed Reporter," which both laid out and ever-so-gently riffed on the real life of a small-market reporter. This was the result:

1. I’ve gone bra-less during a live broadcast and no one was the wiser.
2. My best sources are the ones who secretly have a crush on me.
3. I am better live when I have no script and no idea what I’m talking about.
4. I’ve mastered the ability to contort my body into a position that makes me appear much skinner [sic] in front of the camera than I actually am.
5. I hate the right side of my face.
6. I’m frightened of old people and I refuse to do stories involving them or the places they reside.
7. Happy, fluffy, rainbow stories about good things make me depressed.
8. I’ve taken naps in the news car.
9. If you ramble and I deem you unnecessary for my story, I’ll stop recording but let you think otherwise.
10. I’ve stolen mail and then put it back. (maybe)

Like anybody who blogs or pours their thoughts out online via one format or another, she posted the above, thought the better of it and pulled it down, then thought the better of that and reposted it with the following preface:

This post was taken down because I was momentarily misguided about who I am and what I stand for. To clarify, I make no apologies for the following re-post. It’s funny, satirical and will likely offend some of the more conservative folks. But it isn’t fake and its a genuine look into my slightly twisted psyche. Here’s the thing, I’ve vowed to always fight for the right of free expression. It’s allowed, no matter what the profession. I pride myself in having earned the respect of many because I make no apologies for the truth and hold nothing back. I don’t fight for things because they serve me, I fight for them because they are right. Sources trust me because I am an unadulterated version of the truth. I won’t ever bend just because its popular to do so and I’m not bending now.

To be really honest, there's very little that Allen says here that should be considered the least bit controversial, especially to those who've done any time at all in the TV news trenches. Yes, female reporters sometimes go braless and you don't know about it because, why would you? Of course the easiest people to get information from are the ones who are attracted to you; this has been accepted reality in the field of intelligence gathering since somebody first wanted secrets somebody else had. No, reporters don't like feel-good stories because they're generally boring as hell and they often consider it beneath them, especially at the local level where feel-good stories often involve cats stuck in drains or charity car washes. Yes, reporters sometimes catch quick naps in their cars; you would too if you worked obscene hours, got sent all over town day after day by managers who seemed to be rolling the dice every hour on the hour to determine what story they wanted you to do, and could sometimes spend a good portion of your shift just waiting around. The rest of it reads like what it is: somebody with a decent sense-of-humor and enough of a cynical edge to probably be a pretty effective reporter just kidding around.

It will surprise no one at all to learn that WAAY's management didn't see it that way. They fired Shea Allen without cause for the post as soon as they became aware of it. I'd say that she's now really over a barrel, given that she's apparently the single mother of a little boy, but we all know how these things work: The publicity from her firing, which included a hit on the Today show this morning, will ensure that she's scooped up by another station by this time next week. And ten bucks says that station will be in a much bigger market, making the non-compete clause in her contract meaningless.

You can easily make the argument that young journalists need to learn that online verbal diarrhea has consequences in a business where you're expected to maintain at least a modicum of objectivity and personal distance from the audience. But that's simply not realistic. When I was publicly fired by CNN for blogging way back in 2008 -- and in new media years, yes, that was eons ago -- I spent months afterward railing to my suddenly massive audience and readership that the network had made a huge mistake. I didn't mean by canning me -- while I never revealed where I worked, I still wrote under my own name and regularly offered some pretty blistering views on the TV news business and it was absolutely the network's prerogative to fire me for it -- I mean by not understanding where not just journalism but our culture in general was heading.

I was 38 when I was let go. That made me a dinosaur by social media standards, someone who had at least lived a good portion of his life during a time when there was no social media. The generation behind me has lived almost its entire life online; to expect any 20-something professional to conform to a set of arbitrary social media restrictions, often pulled out of a manager's ass post hoc, isn't simply ridiculous, it's also short-sighted and counterproductive because it's guaranteed to severely impede the ability to hire and keep talent: If you begin discounting everyone who's honest online once in a while, the pool you're drawing people from is going to turn into a puddle. Also, I'd rather have one person on my staff with the fire and dynamism to be a smart-ass online once in a while than ten who don't feel the need to ever speak their minds or have the social media savvy to do it well and meaningfully. A good journalist is somebody with a brain who can't shut up. Local news needs more people like that.

So, yeah, good for you, Shea Allen. Enjoy that 20-point market-jump in your near future.

Get the exclusive Banter Newsletter here!:

This has been going on for years and not only is there nothing you can do about it, most people have barely cared. What are you going to do, drop off Facebook? Leave the internet? Throw your cellphone away? The bottom line is there's nothing you can do. You simply cannot exist in the modern world and have an expectation of privacy. So you shut your eyes and pretend it isn't happening. You tune it out and go about your business, even though you know the prison guards are watching you.

Even if the audience doesn't appreciate that brief moment of communion with the people behind the curtain, the people behind the curtain deserve that brief moment of recognition. And if we're so unyielding in our demand for instant gratification and constant stimuli -- and media outlets are so beholden to that demand from the audience -- then we don't deserve a decent media product anyway.

The CNN host was understandably shaken at the kind of racist language being related on her show on Tuesday. But she, and other journalists, need to be willing to report what Trump and the "alt-right" is all about -- in all its hideousness.

Greenwald isn't a good journalist, so his work needs to be thoroughly vetted by sources other than himself and it's obvious The Guardian won't do it or does it badly. In The Newsroom, Jerry Dantana's blind determination is apparently going to get him fired by his superiors. In Greenwald's case, it seems to earn him applause from his.

I was tempted to title this post "Sarah Palin's Snub of Piers Morgan Is Grotesque, Will Make the Right Come in Its Pants." That's actually far more fitting now that I think about it, because really these kinds of stunts from Palin are actually very easy to believe and are always carefully crafted to feed literal red meat to her audience while driving liberals into an impotent rage.

While Robertson's entitled to cling to whatever backwater bullshit myths he wants, what he shouldn't be not allowed to do -- and what others shouldn't either -- is let those myths dictate the terms of how people are treated or mistreated in a supposedly enlightened culture. We're not, I realize this, but America should be well past the point where falling back on a very specific interpretation of the Bible makes it acceptable to claim moral and spiritual dominion over someone and to essentially persecute that person.

Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine recently posted a really good little column that draws some fascinating parallels between Glenn Greenwald's personality and that of Ralph Nader. For something so quick and to-the-point, it's honestly one of the most insightful pieces examining what makes Glenn so wonderfully "Glenny" that I've ever read; to say that Chait has nailed Greenwald's essence is an understatement. Take a look: "Greenwald, like Nader, marries an indefatigable mastery of detail with fierce moralism. Every issue he examines has a good side and an evil side. Greenwald, speaking not long ago to the New York Times, said something revealing about his intellectual style:'I approach my journalism as a litigator,' he said. 'People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.'That is a highly self-aware account. Of course, the job description of a litigator does not include being fair. You take a side, assume the other side is lying, and prosecute your side full tilt. It’s not your job to account for evidence that undermines your case — it’s your adversary’s job to point that out.This way of looking at the world naturally places one in conflict with most liberals, who are willing to distinguish between gradations of success or failure. Nader and Greenwald believe their analysis not only completely correct, but so obviously correct that the only motivation one could have to disagree is corruption. Good-faith disagreement, or even rank stupidity, is not possible around Greenwald. His liberal critics are lackeys and partisan shills. He may be willing to concede ideological disagreement with self-identified conservatives, but a liberal who disagrees can only be a kept man."A journalist can certainly be part litigator; every journalist to some extent is an advocate. But what makes Greenwald the furthest thing from a journalist is that his tendency toward litigation in favor of his intransigent beliefs causes him to not only overlook facts that contradict his central argument but to then lash out through verbal and intellectual violence at those who point out his negligence. As Chait says, he leaves it up to his adversaries to present the side of the debate that he believes he has no responsibility to consider and promote. However, since he holds so firmly to the case he presents and thinks so highly of both himself and the causes he embraces, there's no way those adversaries can be anything but immoral by taking an opposite position. The thing is, though, that while a journalist is part litigator, as I've said a few times before, he or she is also part scientist. A good journalist has to constantly be testing his or her theories and findings for signs that a bias might be getting the better of the commitment to the truth. In other words, journalists try to prove themselves wrong as often as they try to prove themselves right, just to make sure that an adversary has no contrary argument. Not one that holds water anyway. Greenwald will have none of this. He doesn't check his facts and he doesn't seal up a story airtight because he doesn't approach his work like a journalist -- he approaches it like an ideologue. Case in point: Over the weekend, Greenwald embarrassed himself entirely by instinctively going on the attack on Twitter against Daniel Serwer. Serwer, the father of Mother Jones and MSNBC contributor Adam Serwer, had pointed out that Greenwald, through his constant supplication and fan-girl teasing of new details directly from the mouth of his teen idol, is doing little more than being a PR flack for Edward Snowden. As criticism, this may be somewhat stinging, but in Serwer's defense it has the benefit of being absolutely correct. Greenwald's reaction was exactly what you would expect: He fired off a snotty, petulant tweet in response aimed at putting Serwer in his place: Here's the only problem with Greenwald's response: He's provably, quantifiably wrong; Daniel Serwer has actually done more to make the world a better place in his lifetime than Snowden or just about anybody else ever will. Here's his résumé, compliments of the Center for Transatlantic Relations:"Daniel Serwer (Ph.D., Princeton) is a Professor of Conflict Management, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He is also a Scholar at the Middle East Institute.Formerly Vice President for Centers of Peacebuilding Innovation at the United States Institute of Peace (2009-10), he led teams there working on rule of law, religion, economics, media, technology, security sector governance and gender. He was previously Vice President for Peace and Stability Operations at USIP, where he led its peacebuilding work in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and the Balkans and served as Executive Director of the Hamilton/Baker Iraq Study Group. Serwer has worked on preventing interethnic and sectarian conflict in Iraq and has facilitated dialogue between Serbs and Albanians in the Balkans.He was a minister-counselor at the Department of State, serving from 1994 to 1996 as U.S. special envoy and coordinator for the Bosnian Federation, mediating between Croats and Muslims and negotiating the first agreement reached at the Dayton peace talks. From 1990 to 1993, he was deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, where he led a major diplomatic mission through the end of the Cold War and the first Gulf War."This is the guy who Glenn Greenwald thinks has done less than Edward Snowden in his lifetime. What this shows is that Greenwald is either A) so delusional in his dauntless worship of Snowden that he truly believes that Serwer's accomplishments pale in significance, or B) such a knee-jerk and piss-poor journalist that he didn't bother to check his facts before running his mouth off. Either way, Greenwald's comment cements, for those who still require it, why he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and why everything he writes should be eyed with suspicion. This kind of bullshit -- the kind of thing we're very much used to from Greenwald -- isn't the behavior of a journalist, even a necessary, iconoclastic asshole journalist (and there are many of those). It's the behavior of a pissy child.Adding: Cesca posted not only the full conversation between Greenwald and Daniel Serwer but Adam Serwer's totally fair response to Greenwald's insult, which included the words "Hey Glenn, fuck you." He also put up the best responses to the resulting Twitter hashtag game based around Greenwald's "best Snowden brags." You can find it over at Bob's blog.

If you look at the overall swath of recent hires at Al Jazeera America, there could be cause for concern for anyone hoping that what we'll see come August 20th will be significantly different than anything we've seen in cable news before. A substantial portion of the network's on-air and behind-the-scenes talent is made up of people who've been in U.S. TV news for years